<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Jim Fulton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jim@zope.com">jim@zope.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
3) New egg-like format "pbd"<br>
<br>
- Arrange suffix so ignored by setuptools/distribute<br>
- new-style meta data<br>
- would be a zip file<br>
<br>
- Essentially, .egg format with new-style meta data and different<br>
suffix.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>FWIW, if I were designing the .egg format today with 20/20 hindsight, I would use 'package-version.egg-info' instead of 'EGG-INFO' as the metadata directory. It would make discovery and converting to flat (pip/legacy-style) installations easier, as you could just unzip to the target directory.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Apart from that, I'm not sure what else you'll actually gain by introducing a new format. IIUC, what new-style metadata egg files lack can be determined programmatically from their contents or the existing metadata files, so there seems to be little reason not to at least consume existing egg files.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Conversely, egg files support arbitrary metadata -- which means you can include whatever additional new-style data you want... so there seems little reason not to simply add whatever extra metadata you want to them.</div>
<div><br></div><div>But perhaps there was some consideration or use case I'm not aware of?</div><div><br></div></div>